[EM] Addendum to condorcet method theory

[David Cary]

--- Antonio Oneala <watermark0n at yahoo.com>, on 10/24/2006 wrote:

> David Cary <dcarysysb at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> > Besides its severely
> > limited range of application, the other major
> > drawback of the proposed method is that it is not proportional.
> 
> I have no idea how the application of the method is "limited".  You
> have rather severly misinterpreted my suggestion.  

Yes, I did severely misinterpret your suggestion.  I withdraw what I
said about it.


> It IS cloneproof.  However, a made slight error in my original
> proposal.  Whenever a candidate fulfills the droop quota he should
> automatically be declared one of the winners of one of the rounds,
> and then the value of the votes should be reduced (as it would
> whenever you declare a winner in STV), and the new values of the
> persons vote should be transferred to the next person they had on
> their list.  Whenever this is through you can declare the next
> winner, and you repeat this until you have all the winners.  The
> reason for this is rather obvious.  Under the original erronous
> proposal it would have ended up with a situation simialar to SNTV
> in which surplus votes are wasted.

I think I'm getting a better understanding, but I'm still not sure I
completely understand what is being proposed.  I think you are
saying: 

1. For an N-seat election, use the voted ranked ballots to conduct an
STV-style, N-seat election between every possible combination of N+1
candidates and record the loser of each such contest.

2. If there are exactly N candidates that are unambiguously without
any losses in the N-out-of-N+1 contests, those N candidates are the
winners, corresponding to being the standard Condorcet winner of a
single-winner election.  

3. Otherwise (if there are fewer or more than N candidates without
any losses, or ties and/or tie-breaking makes the number of
candidates without any losses ambiguous), then the result corresponds
to a Condorcet ambiguity in a single-winner election, and some
additional ambiguity resolution is needed to determine the N winners.

Does that restatement reflect what you had in mind?

-- David Cary


 
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. 
(http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta)